Robert Harris's Broken 3rd Floor Daltex Window Theory Blown Out Of The Water

[Bill Miller]

Bill.

A number of times in this thread you have reffered to a lady seen in Altgens 6 holding a "rolled up newspaper"

In Martin's composite below, can you point out which woman in the Croft photo you believe to be holding the rolled up newspaper in her hand ?

Look for this woman in Betzner's photo and you will see her arm raised and holding that rolled up newspaper.

[Bill Miller]

I don't know how high the resolution was on these Thompson Altgens enlargements, but it wasn't hard to find them on Lancer's site ...

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=3&topic_id=82475&mesg_id=82475&listing_type=search

[Martin Hinrichs]

Look for this woman in Betzner's photo and you will see her arm raised and holding that rolled up newspaper.

Bill, with all respect, here you are mistaken.

Lady 8 is wearing a kind of apron and not holding a newspaper.

best

Martin

[Robert Harris]

I would like to add that in spite of some people's best efforts to change the subject, the most important issue discussed in this thread is that of Mrs. Connally's actions and reactions in relation to her testimony. In her earliest statements, she was very specific that she looked back and saw JFK with his hands at neck level.

"I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck."

In the Zapruder film, we see her first turn toward her husband at about 239 and remain focused on him for approximately 15 frames. It was in the 250's that she began to turn toward JFK and by 258 was staring directly at him.

It was the shot at 285 that followed, which she mistakenly believed, had wounded her husband. Her reaction was in almost perfect unison with the other nonvictims in the limo and with Zapruder's reaction as determined by Dr. Luis Alvarez.

[Martin Hinrichs]

I'm not sure why anyone would be seeking a better Thompson version. This much higher resolution photo has been sitting at my website for years and is freely available to everyone.

Robert, what you are posting here again and again i most likely the Corbis purchase from Robin Unger.

It's by far so most used cause it it's really highres but it contains of lot of grain and noise.

The Thompson copy is in it's clarity a top of all. The pity is: We don't have a high resoultion version of fit.

Someone should contact Josiah. If nobody will do it the next days, i'll PM him.

So, when you post this Altgens6 image again, feel free to give Robin Credit for it.

best

Martin

[Robert Harris]

I'm not sure why anyone would be seeking a better Thompson version. This much higher resolution photo has been sitting at my website for years and is freely available to everyone.

Robert, what you are posting here again and again i most likely the Corbis purchase from Robin Unger.

It's by far so most used cause it it's really highres but it contains of lot of grain and noise.

The Thompson copy is in it's clarity a top of all. The pity is: We don't have a high resoultion version of fit.

Someone should contact Josiah. If nobody will do it the next days, i'll PM him.

So, when you post this Altgens6 image again, feel free to give Robin Credit for it.

best

Martin

OIC, so Robin is to blame for the,

"Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image"

Shame on you Robin!

I mean you do believe Duncan's assessment don't you Martin? Neither you nor any of your friends disputed it, so it seems you have no quarrel with his claim as you do with so many of mine

As for "grain and noise" that is only because you can blow it up to a higher degree than the low res version you guys have been touting and see more detail, in spite of the noise. At equivalent dimensions, the higher res version displays much less distortion.

As I said over and over again it is the best version of that photo that is publicly available. You might consider simply acknowledging that I am correct and that your vendetta-driven friend is as usual, totally full of crap.

[Martin Hinrichs]

OIC, so Robin is to blame for the,

"Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image"

Shame on you Robin!

I mean you do believe Duncan's assessment don't you Martin? Neither you nor any of your friends disputed it, so it seems you have no quarrel with his claim as you do with so many of mine

As for "grain and noise" that is only because you can blow it up to a higher degree than the low res version you guys have been touting and see more detail, in spite of the noise. At equivalent dimensions, the higher res version displays much less distortion.

As I said over and over again it is the best version of that photo that is publicly available. You might consider simply acknowledging that I am correct and that your vendetta-driven friend is as usual, totally full of crap.

Robert, my posting has nothing to do with Duncan's assessment. I only believe that the Thompson version is taken from a negative which is.... obviously better. Not everybody who disagree with you on some subjects is your enemy.

My included. When we would telephone and you would hear my voice it would be clear.

I like a lot of your research and of course i believe in a conspiracy as you as well. You give your supporters sometimes

a very hard time. Sad.

Martin

Edited November 19, 2010 by Martin Hinrichs

[Robert Harris]

OIC, so Robin is to blame for the,

"Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image"

Shame on you Robin!

I mean you do believe Duncan's assessment don't you Martin? Neither you nor any of your friends disputed it, so it seems you have no quarrel with his claim as you do with so many of mine

As for "grain and noise" that is only because you can blow it up to a higher degree than the low res version you guys have been touting and see more detail, in spite of the noise. At equivalent dimensions, the higher res version displays much less distortion.

As I said over and over again it is the best version of that photo that is publicly available. You might consider simply acknowledging that I am correct and that your vendetta-driven friend is as usual, totally full of crap.

Robert, my posting has nothing to do with Duncan's assessment. I only believe that the Thompson version is taken from a negative which is.... obviously better. Not everybody who disagree with you on some subjects is your enemy.

My included. When we would telephone and you would hear my voice it would be clear.

I like a lot of your research and of course i believe in a conspiracy as you as well. You give your supporters sometimes

a very hard time. Sad.

Martin

I give no one a hard time except the phonies and liars, Martin.

And I have little respect for those who support such people.

Even now, you won't admit that Duncan's allegation was false, that I "Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image".

Why is that Martin? Are you here to get at the truth or to support team Duncan and operation "get Harris"?

Why did you even attack my statement about harassment in his forum, after you apparently forgot sending me emails back then in complete agreement?

[David Josephs]

There will be obvious differences in photographic quality as viewed on a monitor and thru video cards.

Quality of the card, the computer, the monitor, resolution settings, etc....

And doesn't what matter is our ability to use things like Photoshop to zoom, enhance, etc... to bring out detail in whatever quality image we have to work with.

Good, bad or indifference, Harris' image has more pixels, more data than the ONLINE version of Josiah's so at 200%, side by side, we wind up seeing in Josaih's, the little squares that become apparent when the digital image runs out of data. Green as it may be, there is some compelling "data" there.

To that end... I've blown up the area inwhich the bullet hole is supposed to be seen in Alt6... read where some thought this is the apron folds yet there does seem to be a hole at the center and some radiant cracks...

Still don't know why the gif's dont just run... please click.

thoughts?

[Dean Hagerman]

Are you here to get at the truth or to support team Duncan and operation "get Harris"?

Team Duncan?

Operation "Get Harris"?

Robert you are killing me! Im going to have a heart attack from laughing so hard!

[Robert Harris]

There will be obvious differences in photographic quality as viewed on a monitor and thru video cards.

Quality of the card, the computer, the monitor, resolution settings, etc....

And doesn't what matter is our ability to use things like Photoshop to zoom, enhance, etc... to bring out detail in whatever quality image we have to work with.

Good, bad or indifference, Harris' image has more pixels, more data than the ONLINE version of Josiah's so at 200%, side by side, we wind up seeing in Josaih's, the little squares that become apparent when the digital image runs out of data. Green as it may be, there is some compelling "data" there.

Thank you Joseph. I don't see how any sane person can fail to realize the difference in the quality of those images.

What is more important however, is that in spite of the goofy claims that there are boxes or a little man in the window, we see in BOTH images, clear evidence that the cord on the left side has been cut, and an irregularly shaped section of the blinds in that corner is missing.

[David Josephs]

Good, bad or indifference, Harris' image has more pixels, more data than the ONLINE version of Josiah's so at 200%, side by side, we wind up seeing in Josaih's, the little squares that become apparent when the digital image runs out of data. Green as it may be, there is some compelling "data" there.

David,

You have been fooled by the Harris composite of the two images.

He has turned the Thomson PNG image ( my crop of the window ) in to a low quality JPEG image, hence creating JPEG artifacts on the Thomson window before uploading.

Duncan

Thanks for the explanation Duncan.... yet as you can see from this overlay... the Thomson image I have is just over 2Meg btw... even the dust and artifacts line up.... Now yours is smoother, no doubt, but in the process a little resolution is sacrificed.

Can we have a quick discussion on the tools and techniques used to enhance/enlarge digital images?

What do you feel is the best way to enlarge, enhance and improve Altgens6 regardless of the original file size and resolution?

thx

DJ

[Craig Lamson]

OIC, so Robin is to blame for the,

"Photoshopped filtered overly sharpened mega grainy JPEG Incredible Hulkerized GREEN tinted image"

Shame on you Robin!

I mean you do believe Duncan's assessment don't you Martin? Neither you nor any of your friends disputed it, so it seems you have no quarrel with his claim as you do with so many of mine

As for "grain and noise" that is only because you can blow it up to a higher degree than the low res version you guys have been touting and see more detail, in spite of the noise. At equivalent dimensions, the higher res version displays much less distortion.

As I said over and over again it is the best version of that photo that is publicly available. You might consider simply acknowledging that I am correct and that your vendetta-driven friend is as usual, totally full of crap.

No....the person to blame is who ever overprocessed this image. It's a total mess, nearly useless for study do the the gross overapplication of digital processing. The file as on Robins site is pretty nice. This image is a novice's nightmare.

Someones photoshop licence should be revoked.

[Dean Hagerman]

we see in BOTH images, clear evidence that the cord on the left side has been cut, and an irregularly shaped section of the blinds in that corner is missing.

Who is weRobert?

Dont you mean you?

[David Josephs]

There will be obvious differences in photographic quality as viewed on a monitor and thru video cards.

Quality of the card, the computer, the monitor, resolution settings, etc....

And doesn't what matter is our ability to use things like Photoshop to zoom, enhance, etc... to bring out detail in whatever quality image we have to work with.

Good, bad or indifference, Harris' image has more pixels, more data than the ONLINE version of Josiah's so at 200%, side by side, we wind up seeing in Josaih's, the little squares that become apparent when the digital image runs out of data. Green as it may be, there is some compelling "data" there.

Thank you Joseph. I don't see how any sane person can fail to realize the difference in the quality of those images.

What is more important however, is that in spite of the goofy claims that there are boxes or a little man in the window, we see in BOTH images, clear evidence that the cord on the left side has been cut, and an irregularly shaped section of the blinds in that corner is missing.

Robert...

What each of us actually sees (resolution, detail, color, etc) is very subjective imo. Some people claim the softness of the Sony TVs provides better detail than of more "sharper" manufacturers... a matter of preference.

I've added some arrows to try and understand your point.

First off some common ground:

- the "cord" of a blind, venetian in this case I believe, is always on the inside of the room, not between the blind and the window

(I would ask if you know on those specific blinds whether the cord(s) is/are on the left or right facing the window from the inside... if usually on the left then obviously your conclusions are incorrect at face value. If on the right, and potentially in the altgens image, were they within the frame of the blinds or at the very end of the window... again, matters as to you conclusions.

I see a cord hanging down in the image on the left, 1st arrow on the left

- the blinds themselves have cloth guides (top right arrow) that we see stops... the blinds are not completely down or are they even down at all? If one looks at the 3rd floor window to the left of the fire-escape we can see the overhead light and it's obvious that the blinds are up in the window full of people

- the middle arrow is the one pointing to the cut cord YOU are referring to

- the bottoms of all these windows DO NOT HAVE PANES

- YOU know for a fact that each window had blinds the spliced in window on the left seems to show the overhead lights thru the top part of the window... there are no blinds there or they are completely up. Seems the same everywhere.

Without conceding one way or the other Robert... you'd have to admit it POSSIBLE that the blinds are completely open and there are items

within that room that can cause lighter and darker areas to be noticed.

The bottom left of the window with the people also seems discolored at the bottom left... darker at least.

And this Dillard blow-up... the darkened areas within the windows, foloowing your presentation, should be broken windows and not contrasting areas casued by items behind the window.

I don't think your concept is completely far-fetched - I've read in a number of places that a shooting lane created by a hole in a wall, window or whatever is a perfect place for a sniper yet there are a number of other bits of data we should know about the blinds, window, room behind the window, etc... before we conclude THAT specific window was broken when opening the window slightly and stepping back into the room would have accomplished the same thing, I'd like to know the answer to some of these other questions.